Re: Security through Permissiveness: A Zen Riddle?

From: Casey Schaufler (caseyat_private)
Date: Fri Jul 13 2001 - 11:36:55 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "TODO list"

    Crispin Cowan wrote:
    
    > So Shane should be able to achieve his goals through any one of several
    > different paths:
    > 
    >    * use POSIX capabilities to grant the particular privs desired to some
    >      non-root daemons
    >    * use your favorite restrictive module (SubDomain, LIDS, Janus, SELinux,
    >      etc.) to restrict some root daemon to only the activities it needs to do
    >      its job
    
    During the POSIX specification process is was noted that a new
    access control scheme can either offer an Alternative policy
    or an Additional policy. The POSIX ACL scheme is an example
    of the former, although is tries desperately to qualify as the
    later. The POSIX Mandatory Access Control (MAC) scheme, on the
    other hand, is strictly additional. The oft meligned Capability
    scheme is an Alternative to the Superuser scheme. The POSIX
    group had the distinct advantage of being restricted to the
    P1003.[12] scope and terminology, which allowed a certain
    narrowness.
    
    -- 
    
    Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
    caseyat_private				voice: 650.933.1634
    casey_pat_private			Pager: 888.220.0607
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 13 2001 - 11:38:28 PDT